Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of central corneal thickness with four different optical devices

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

To compare the consistency between the average scores of the contact central corneal thickness measurements from ultrasound pachymetry devices still gold standard, such as iPac® and Echoscan US-500, and noncontact measurements via Pentacam HR and Sirius topography.

Methods

This prospective study, subsequently admitted to the ophthalmology department, 76 healthy individuals were performed. The measurements were repeated three times for each eye, and average scores were statistically analyzed on the same day and almost at the same time. While measuring the eyes, Pentacam HR, Sirius topography, iPac®, and Echoscan US-500 were used, respectively. The inter-rater agreement of measurements from the devices was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient, and 95% Confidence Interval and p values demonstrating statistically significance were also presented. In the graphical assessment of the agreement, the Bland–Altman graph was used.

Results

Among 76 study participants, 43 (56.6%) were composed of women, and age level was 38.6 ± 12.5 years, ranging between 18 and 69. It was observed that the highest agreement was between the measurements obtained from Echoscan US-500 and iPac® devices, but the agreement between the measurements of different devices was higher than 0.90. Bland–Altman graphics were also investigated; the results of four different devices were seen to be consistent with one another.

Conclusions

Therefore, the devices we compared in the study can be used as alternatives to one another due to the higher consistency between CCT measurements provided with through UP devices of Echoscan US-500 and iPac®, and Pentacam HR and Sirius topography devices.

Clinical Trial Registration number: 2016/112

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Huang J, Savini G, Hu L et al (2013) Precision of a new Scheimpflug and Placido-disk analyzer in measuring corneal thickness and agreement with ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:219–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mandell RB, Polse KA (1969) Keratoconus: spatial variation of corneal thickness as a diagnostic test. Arch Ophthalmol 82:182–188

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gherghel D, Hosking SL, Mantry S et al (2004) Corneal pachymetry in normal and keratoconic eyes: orbscan II versus ultrasound. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:1272–1277

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Maresca N, Zeri F, Palumbo P et al (2014) Agreement and reliability in measuring central corneal thickness with a rotating Scheimpflug–Placido system and ultrasound pachymetry. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 37:442–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dueker DK, Singh K, Lin SC et al (2007) Corneal thickness measurement in the management of primary open-angle glaucoma: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 114:1779–1787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tai LY, Khaw KW, Ng CM et al (2013) Central corneal thickness measurements with different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry. Cornea 32:766–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Şimşek A, Bilak Ş, Güler M et al (2016) Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements obtained by RTVue OCT, Lenstar, Sirius topography, and ultrasound pachymetry in healthy subjects. Semin Ophthalmol 31:467–472

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lanza M, Paolillo E, Gironi Carnevale UA et al (2015) Central corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes with three different optical devices. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 38:409–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee YG, Kim JH, Kim NR et al (2011) Comparison between Tonopachy and other tonometric and pachymetric devices. Optom Vis Sci 88:843–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hashemi H, Jafarzadehpur E, Mehravaran S et al (2011) Comparison of corneal thickness measurement with the Pentacam, the PARK1 and an ultrasonic pachymeter. Clin Exp Optom 94:433–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lattimore MR Jr (1996) Influence of extended soft contact lens wear on the comparative measurement of central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 74:239–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen S, Huang J, Wen D et al (2012) Measurement of central corneal thickness by high-resolution Scheimpflug imaging, Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography and ultrasound pachymetry. Acta Ophthalmol 90:449–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nemeth G, Tsorbatzoglou A, Kertesz K et al (2006) Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with a new optical device and a standard ultrasonic pachymeter. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:460–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Paul T, Lim M, Starr CE et al (2008) Central corneal thickness measured by the Orbscan II system, contact ultrasound pachymetry, and the Artemis 2 system. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:1906–1912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Solomon OD (1999) Corneal indentation during ultrasonic pachometry. Cornea 18:214–215

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Santodomingo-Rubido J, Mallen EA, Gilmartin B et al (2002) A new non-contact optical device for ocular biometry. Br J Ophthalmol 86:458–462

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hashemi H, Mehravaran Sh (2007) Central corneal thickness measurement with Pentacam, Orbscan II, and ultrasound devices before and after laser refractive surgery for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:1701–1707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Al-Mezaine HS, Al-Amro SA, Kangave D et al (2008) Comparison between central corneal thickness measurements by oculus pentacam and ultrasonic pachymetry. Int Ophthalmol 28:333–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fujioka M, Nakamura M, Tatsumi Y et al (2007) Comparison of Pentacam Scheimpflug camera with ultrasound pachymetry and noncontact specular microscopy in measuring central corneal thickness. Curr Eye Res 32:89–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Amano S, Honda N, Amano Y et al (2006) Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by rotating Scheimpflug camera, ultrasonic pachymetry, and scanning-slit corneal topography. Ophthalmology 113:937–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Barkana Y, Gerber Y, Elbaz U et al (2005) Central corneal thickness measurement with the Pentacam Scheimpflug system, optical low-coherence reflectometry pachymeter, and ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:1729–1735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. O’Donnell C, Maldonado-Codina C (2005) Agreement and repeatability of central thickness measurement in normal corneas using ultrasound pachymetry and the OCULUS Pentacam. Cornea 24:920–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kniestedt C, Lin S, Choe J et al (2005) Clinical comparison of contour and applanation tonometry and their relationship to pachymetry. Arch Ophthalmol 123:1532–1537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bron AM, Creuzot-Garcher C, Goudeau-Boutillon S et al (1999) Falsely elevated intraocular pressure due to increased central corneal thickness. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 237:220–224

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Chatterjee A, Shah S, Bessant DA et al (1997) Reduction in intraocular pressure after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy. Correlation with pretreatment myopia. Ophthalmology 104:355–359

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Düzce University Medical School, Orhangazi Mah., Konuralp 500. Cd, No: 125/7, 81450, Düzce, Turkey

    Kuddusi Teberik, Mehmet Tahir Eski & Murat Kaya

  2. Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Düzce University Medical School, Düzce, Turkey

    Handan Ankaralı

Authors
  1. Kuddusi Teberik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehmet Tahir Eski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Murat Kaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Handan Ankaralı
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kuddusi Teberik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Teberik, K., Eski, M.T., Kaya, M. et al. Comparison of central corneal thickness with four different optical devices. Int Ophthalmol 38, 2363–2369 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0736-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0736-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation